Briere's Shootout Goal

"On the second shootout attempt by Philadelphia Flyers, video review upheld the referee's call on the ice that Daniel Briere kept the puck in motion and that the puck never came to a complete stop and thus it was a good goal."

I just watched this clip again after last night and it still angers me. The original rule was that the player couldnt come to a complete stop, which in this case Briere clearly does, then they come back and say no its the puck that needs to come to a complete stop.

I dont understand why, at this point in the NHL's run, that there are so many different discrepancies with calls. On the other hand, it was a good attempt by Briere himself.

I just wanted to know what are all of your views on this play.

Edited by Quinn01, 04 November 2011 - 09:33 PM.

0

Winner of the 2010-2011 Hobey Baker Award for Best Rookie Poster.Official Keeper of Martin Brodeur's Ending Powerplay Whistle & KOVALtine, the drink with the shelf life of 15 years.

24.2 Procedure - The Referee shall ask to have announced over the public address system the name of the player designated by him or selected by the team entitled to take the shot (as appropriate). He shall then place the puck on the center face-off spot and the player taking the shot will, on the instruction of the Referee (by blowing his whistle), play the puck from there and shall attempt to score on the goalkeeper. The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the goal post or crossbar, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal), and any time the puck crosses the goal line or comes to a complete stop, the shot shall be considered complete.

The lacrosse-like move whereby the puck is picked up on the blade of the stick and “whipped” into the net shall be permitted provided the puck is not raised above the height of the shoulders at any time and when released, is not carried higher than the crossbar. See also 80.1.

The spin-o-rama type move where the player completes a 360° turn as he approaches the goal, shall be permitted as this involves continuous motion.

Only a player designated as a goalkeeper or alternate goalkeeper may defend against the penalty shot.

The goalkeeper must remain in his crease until the player taking the penalty shot has touched the puck.

If at the time a penalty shot is awarded, the goalkeeper of the penalized team has been removed from the ice to substitute another player, the goalkeeper shall be permitted to return to the ice before the penalty shot is taken.

The team against whom the penalty shot has been assessed may replace their goalkeeper to defend against the penalty shot, however, the substitute goalkeeper is required to remain in the game until the next stoppage of play.

While the penalty shot is being taken, players of both sides shall withdraw to the sides of the rink and in front of their own player’s bench.

The league is either seeing the play differently than I and saying the puck was always going in a forward motion towards the goal line, because the puck appears to stop and travel backwards, or the league is misapplying the rule that should only apply to the spin-o-rama.

Edited by Devils731, 04 November 2011 - 10:57 AM.

0

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

i think it should not count...stopping motion but nhl is interpruting the rules a different way...i think he obviously changed his mind when he saw hedburg cut off the left side and stopped and went right...briere prob wasnt confident it would go

0

"The $297,297 Kovalchuk missed today is money he will never, ever get back. And the more cheques he misses, the better the deal is going to have to be for the players to justify him sitting out. And unlike the owners, the players can direct their leadership to get a deal done regardless of how disadvantageous it is to them."

I'll be honest, though...I didn't even think about it until I saw DeBoer yelling at the ref that "he came to a stop."

But the replays clearly show this. No matter...we won.

0

"A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything. Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness."

to me he stopped completely and since he stopped and had to drag back the puck from behind up front to go on it means that he and the puck was stopped.

i dont have a problem with goals like selane did once where he was going full speed, stopped and shot the puck right away (the puck actually did continue on that one)

but Briere stopped... then went on with the puck... i mean come on now. if they allow this players will obviously take advantage of it, they should have dissalowed to set a message not to fvck around too much, its totally Briere's fault if he decided to make a borderline move after all

The original rule was that the player couldnt come to a complete stop, which in this case Briere clearly does, then they come back and say no its the puck that needs to come to a complete stop.

The player's motion is what should be key, and the puck second. Especially since he temporarily blinded Moose with that snowstorm when he stopped. Wasn't their ruling last year about Kovy's mishandling of a shot basically that he lost control of the puck and forfeited his shot? The league can't make up their minds where to draw the line on shots like this. Another reason it's a terrible way to end a close game. (not interested in the 'crowd-pleasing' entertainment value they note from shootouts)

Yes, they keep waffling on it, basically because someone makes some great move that wows the crowd, like Crosby's acrobatics, or someone else's spin-o-rama and then there's this huge outcry when a 'skill' play like that isn't allowed. So when they do allow it, it leads to $h!t like this.

It's like, has anyone ever seen a game won on an empty net goal - when the scoring player flips the puck up on the blade of his stick and just carries it into the goal without it touching the ice in between? no, and it would be a freak thing if it ever happened - and lousy on the part of the defense for not at least being in position to knock the puck right off the stick. BUT the one time it DOES happen, half the people will say "wow what a skilled play" and the other half would be calling foul, mostly on the grounds that it isn't a traditional hockey play, or that its 'unsportsmanlike showboating'

It's just the rules they think are so concrete are found later to have more holes in them than anyone imagined...

As a devils fan I can blow this off and say, what the heck we won. I do think the problem is the precedent this is going to set. This is the puck and the player clearly stopping and I can just imagine the implications from allowing that.

I actually chuckled when I saw the goal scored because I thought it was pretty "nasty" of a move. Even though I'm a staunch Devils supporter, I thought it was entertaining.

However, from a technical perspective, I think there is clear and present advantages to the shooter in this case. If they are going to allow a move like that Briere made, to even the playing field, they should allow the goalie to storm out of the crease and challenge the shooter one-on-one at that point.

That would be just as entertaining.

Just imagine, Briere gets flattened by Hedberg...that would get some reviews...

As a devils fan I can blow this off and say, what the heck we won. I do think the problem is the precedent this is going to set. This is the puck and the player clearly stopping and I can just imagine the implications from allowing that.

exactly, the league needs to come out and clarify.. they need to admit it was a wrong decision because we cant have more of these plays count

The problem with hockey and football is that they have to continuously change the rules due to poor officiating. Both leagues should NOT have league officials monitering these replays. They never want to contradict their fellow officials

If that doesn't fall under the complete stop rule, then what does? He clearly reacts to Moose's aggressive play by turning both skates to stop his forward movement, putting the blade of his stick in front of the puck to cradle it and stop its forward motion, and then taking a new stride to his right to push off from his lost momentum (then, he stumbles, since he so abruptly stopped and changed directions). It's not borderline at all, it's a clear stop and against the rules as they're written. It's an absolute joke that this was allowed to stand, but then, the shootout itself is a big joke so why even bother trying to apply any rules to it?

I actually chuckled when I saw the goal scored because I thought it was pretty "nasty" of a move. Even though I'm a staunch Devils supporter, I thought it was entertaining.

However, from a technical perspective, I think there is clear and present advantages to the shooter in this case. If they are going to allow a move like that Briere made, to even the playing field, they should allow the goalie to storm out of the crease and challenge the shooter one-on-one at that point.

That would be just as entertaining.

Just imagine, Briere gets flattened by Hedberg...that would get some reviews...

I'm confused. I see a lot of people continuously stating that he came to a complete stop (as much as one can on ice skates) and to that I have no disagreement. But, when did the rules ever say that? I only see mention of the pucks motion, and I think that's more ambiguous.

I think their are two conflicting camera angles of the same play. I would argue in the first angle (broadcaster) it looks as if Briere pulls the puck backwards while "stopped" and in that case, violates the rule. However on the second view (behind the net) I would say it looks as if the puck is always (if ever so slightly) moving towards the goal line. Given that, It's not hard for me to see why they didn't overturn the call, and on top of that as I mentioned in the GDT that shootout controversies seem to favor the shooter I think it's at least consistent.